What OS do you use?

[nagano]

I dual boot Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7, Ubuntu being my primary OS. What do you use?

[Joaz Banbeck]

Linux, of course. How could a sane person do otherwise?

[Dusk Eagle]

Kubuntu 11.04, since I haven't upgraded to 11.10 yet.

[RobertJasiek]

Linux, of course. How could a sane person do otherwise?

Please explain.

[Solomon]

I use Win 7 and OS X equally.

[daal]

What's BSD? Blue Screen of Death? That was my old OS.

[kirkmc]

Linux, of course. How could a sane person do otherwise?

See? That's why Linux users have such difficulty integrating into society...

[cdybeijing]

Ubuntu 10.04. I will upgrade when 12.04 comes out.

Even though I use Linux, I don't delight in changing my OS every six months.

[hyperpape]

Windows 7. I was a Mac user, but couldn't afford a new Macbook.

I was using Ubuntu, but there were a few problems with my hardware and I was frustrated by the general poor design and usability of the OS and apps.

[ez4u]

How could you make a poll like this with only one choice?
iOS 5 on the iPad,
Windows 7 (32-bit) on the newer netbook and XP on the older netbook,
Windows 7 (64-bit) and Ubuntu on the desktop,
Puppylinux on an older laptop,
and I'm looking at a macbook air right now.
(not to mention various versions of Japanese Windows: XP, Vista, and 7 on other family machines!)

[Toge]

Windows 7.

To me debating about worth of something basic like operating system feels close to pondering could you update firmware of your television set. If the system works and allows you to do everything you wanted on computer, why would there be any reason to start alterning it? Well, saving money could be a reason, but from technical point of view all hardware and software are made to work on Windows, since huge segment of consumers use it.

[tj86430]

If the system works and allows you to do everything you wanted on computer, why would there be any reason to start alterning it?

Not wanting to worry about keeping virus protection and firewall up to date might be one.

[hyperpape]

Windows 7.

To me debating about worth of something basic like operating system feels close to pondering could you update firmware of your television set. If the system works and allows you to do everything you wanted on computer, why would there be any reason to start alterning it? Well, saving money could be a reason, but from technical point of view all hardware and software are made to work on Windows, since huge segment of consumers use it.

I could not disagree more. Having used each of Windows 7, Windows XP, Ubuntu and the Mac for substantial portions of the last 18 months, the differences are still vast. Over the past decade, things are more likely to work at a technical level--all these systems are more stable than their predecessors*, but the differences in how they expect you to operate are still huge. Software has different design decisions across the platforms, and those effect how easily you can use it. Those differences aren't going away, no matter how much the graphics used in the desktops are converging.

* The ones I tried back then, which isn't everything.

[amnal]

Linux, of course. How could a sane person do otherwise?

See? That's why Linux users have such difficulty integrating into society...

What's this? A snarky comment from a mac user? Let the stereotype wars begin!

Or, more seriously, I hope that you are joking and understand that counting only the people who fit your existing stereotype is... not useful.

Oh, and I use Arch Linux. I personally think that it really makes no odds any more for an average user. The average person, who wants to use facebook, google and a word processor, is well catered for. The exact method of catering is one of preference, and linux probably offers the widest range of options at, perhaps, a slightly lower level of polish but a greater level of control available. I don't think either of these things makes a large enough impact to be a significant difference from the others in general terms, though a tiling wm user or a locked-in MS office user (for instance) have their choices reduced in ways other than technical details.

[amnal]

Windows 7.

To me debating about worth of something basic like operating system feels close to pondering could you update firmware of your television set. If the system works and allows you to do everything you wanted on computer, why would there be any reason to start alterning it? Well, saving money could be a reason, but from technical point of view all hardware and software are made to work on Windows, since huge segment of consumers use it.

Your first sentence makes the assumption that the second sentence is the case. This is an incorrect assumption for many people (though as you say, perhaps not for the largest segment of people).

For instance, windows does not (easily) offer the level of customisation and control that linux does for me. It is difficult (if it's possible at all) to replace the window manager with something more powerful. It is much more heavyweight than the systems that can easily be created on a linux base, although it may be possible to reduce this footprint with effort. I'd actually go a step further and say that it's harder to use in the everyday sense than linux, with things like searching for programs on the internet instead of 'pacman -S program', but this is clearly a personal opinion.

It also isn't the case that all software is made to work on windows, because...well, it isn't. In some cases, such as the window manager case, windows doesn't make itself easy to work with even if you want to.